Netanyahu lies and distorts - we will see who pays the price

As a secular Jew, I don’t do much praying. But this week, as the powerful pro-Israeli- government lobby AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) holds its annual policy meeting in Washington, I’m praying that this year marks the beginning of the end of the lobby’s grip on US foreign policy.

From March 1-3, over 10,000 AIPAC supporters will descend on the nation’s capital. The meeting comes at a time when the relationship between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is at an all-time low. House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress right after he speaks at the AIPAC conference is seen by the White House as a direct attempt to undermine the president and his administration’s nuclear talks with Iran.

AIPAC’s support of the Israeli prime minister over the US president is turning AIPAC into a Republican-biased lobby, which could prove fatal to its future influence in Washington. Here are ten reasons why this would be good for world peace:

1. AIPAC wants to sabotage nuclear talks with Iran.

AIPAC—like the Israeli government—has no faith in the complex negotiations under way between Iran and the United States (along with its five partners) to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It pushes for greater sanctions on Iran knowing that—as Secretary of State John Kerry has said—additional sanctions would threaten the diplomatic path.

AIPAC, which has successfully lobbied the US government to adopt crippling economic sanctions on Iran in the past, is ignoring White House warnings. Its lobby day this year will push for the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill, which the president has vowed to veto. If the nuclear talks fail, the violence that has engulfed the Middle East will only get worse and will put the United States on a dangerous path to more war.

As of this past year, approximately 350,000 Israelis are recorded as living in illegal settlements, a record high. Despite the fact that United Nations Human Rights Council requested the removal of all of the West Bank’s settlers and cessation of all settlement activities without conditions, settlement construction has increased by 40 percent under Netanyahu.

Claiming Israel was forced to defend itself against Hamas, AIPAC supported the Israeli offensive during the summer of 2014 called “Operation Protective Edge.” The attack resulted in more than 2,000 deaths (including over 500 children), six UN schools and hospitals flattened, 18,000 housing units destroyed and 108,000 people displaced from their homes.

Robert Cohen, the president of AIPAC, justified the Israeli offensive in a meeting with Congress on July 23. AIPAC also supported the two prior invasions of Gaza and the siege that has left Gaza’s 1.8 million residents living lives of intense poverty and misery.

4. AIPAC’s call for unconditional support for the Israeli government threatens US national security.

Washington’s one-sided support of Israel, demanded by AIPAC, has significantly increased anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East, sowing the seeds of more possible terrorist attacks.

Iran, additionally, could be a vital ally for the United States in the Middle East in the fight to control the Islamic State. But because of Israel’s hatred toward Iran and its strong influence on our politicians, US foreign policy reflect Israel’s perceived interests more than ours.

5. AIPAC makes the United States a pariah at the UN.

AIPAC describes the United Nations as a body hostile to Israel and has pressured the US government to oppose resolutions calling Israel to account. Since 1972, the United States has vetoed at least forty-five UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel’s actions against the Palestinians.

In 2011, AIPAC helped persuade 446 members of Congress to co-sponsor resolutions opposing Palestine’s petition to obtain statehood in the UN. Overriding Washington’s (and AIPAC’s) objections, in 2012 the UN General Assembly passed a motion granting Palestine non-member observer state status by a vote of 138 to 9.

More recently, in response to Palestine’s seeking membership at the International Criminal Court, AIPAC pushed the Obama administration to pull funding from the Palestinian Authority. Despite US opposition, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon affirmed that Palestine will become a member of the ICC on April 1, a highly controversial move that will allow Palestine to press charges against Israel for war crimes.

6. AIPAC feeds US government officials a distorted view of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

AIPAC takes US representatives on sugar-coated trips to Israel, which are considered almost obligatory for every new member of Congress. AIPAC hosts members of Congress—and many of their spouses—on a free junket to Israel to see precisely what the Israeli government wants them to see. It’s illegal for lobby groups to take members of Congress on trips, but AIPAC gets around the law by using a bogus educational group called the American Israel Education Foundation to “organize” the trips for them. AIEF has the same office address as AIPAC and the same staff. These trips help cement the ties between AIPAC and Congress, furthering AIPAC’s undue influence.

To prove most of Congress is in the pocket of AIPAC, look no further than what AIPAC boastsabout its policy conference, which is that it will “be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.”

7. AIPAC attacks politicians who question unconditional support of Israel.

AIPAC demands that Congress rubber-stamp legislation drafted by AIPAC staff. It keeps a record of how members of Congress vote, which is used by donors to make contributions to the politicians who score well.

Members of Congress who fail to support AIPAC legislation have been targeted for defeat in re-election bids. These include Senators Adlai Stevenson III and Charles Percy, and Representatives Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard.

More recently, many Democrats who have publicly refused to attend Netanyahu’s speech in March have been directly targeted by AIPAC’s largest supporters. A representative of billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelsonwarned that “if these Democrats would rather put partisan politics ahead of principle and walk out on the prime minister of Israel, then we have an obligation to make that known.” Adelson and Netanyahu’s other powerful right-wing supporters have vowed to use their wealth and extensive resources to punish Democrats who skip the speech.

8. AIPAC attempts to silence all criticism of Israel by labeling critics as “anti-Semitic,” “de-legitimizers” or “self-hating Jews.”

Journalists, think tanks, students and professors have been accused of anti-Semitism for merely taking stands critical of Israeli government policies. These attacks stifle the critical discussions and debates that are at the heart of democratic policy-making.

9. AIPAC lobbies for billions of US tax dollars to go to Israel instead of rebuilding America.

With communities across the nation slashing budgets for teachers, firefighters and police, AIPAC pushes for over $3 billion a year in foreign aid to Israel. This money goes to the Israeli military to maintain, in high-tech fashion, the apartheid system of oppressing Palestinians.

10. Money to Israel takes funds from the world’s poor.

Israel has the twenty-fourth-largest economy in the world, but thanks to AIPAC, it gets more US tax dollars than any other country. At a time when the foreign aid budget is being slashed, reserving the lion’s share of foreign assistance for Israel means taking funds from critical programs to feed, provide shelter and offer emergency assistance to the world’s poorest people.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent of a foreign government, has influence on US policy out of all proportion to the number of Americans who support its policies. When a small group like this has disproportionate power, it hurts everyone—including Israelis and American Jews.

From stopping a catastrophic war with Iran to finally solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, an essential starting point is breaking AIPAC’s grip on US policy. That’s why I’m praying that this time, by snubbing President Obama and offending Democratic members of Congress, AIPAC is careening toward its own demise.

As I said, yesterday, I'm not sure just how a grain of salt to take with this website, but this is today's article:

Despite attempted portrayals of a sectarian battle taking place in the longtime Jihadist stronghold of Tikrit, some 5,000 Sunni militiamen are fighting alongside the Iraqi Security Forces and Shi’i paramilitary units to combat the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham inside the city and surrounding area.

On Tuesday, the ISF and their allies received a big boost from a local Sunni tribe that declared their support and alliance with the former in the city of Baiji; this comes three days after the ISF launched their offensive in Tikrit.

The Sunni tribe formed a militia group that labeled themselves as the “Martyrs of Salahiddeen” – they will assist the ISF in defending Baiji from any militant attacks; however, there was no confirmation about their participation in the battle for Tikrit.

ISIS militants are attempting to convey the battle of Tikrit as a sectarian fight against the Iranian-backed Shi’i, who are attempting to impose their own agenda on this predominately Sunni city.

Camp Speicher, in northwestern Tikrit, was the scene of the heinous massacre of 1,700 Iraqi soldiers by militants of ISIS last June – for many of the ISF fighting in Tikrit, this battle holds a profound meaning, as the Camp Speicher massacre was propagated by ISIS social media networks without any remorse for the dead.

"Netanyahu’s Nuclear DeceptionsA Response to Netanyahu From Iran’s Ambassador to the UN

By GHOLAMALI KHOSHROOMARCH 3, 2015

UNITED NATIONS — In the address on Tuesday to the United States Congress by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, we witnessed a new peak in the long-running hype over Iran’s nuclear energy program. Yet all his predictions about how close Iran was to acquiring a nuclear bomb have proved baseless.

Despite that, alarmist rhetoric on the theme has been a staple of Mr. Netanyahu’s career. In an interview with the BBC in 1997, he accused Iran of secretly “building a formidable arsenal of ballistic missiles,” predicting that eventually Manhattan would be within range. In 1996, he stood before Congress and urged other nations to join him to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability, stressing that “time is running out.” Earlier, as a member of Parliament, in 1992, he predicted that Iran would be able to produce a nuclear weapon within three to five years.

In front of world leaders at the United Nations in September 2012, Mr. Netanyahu escalated his warnings by declaring that Iran could acquire the bomb within a year. It is ironic that in doing so, he apparently disregarded the assessment of his own secret service: A recently revealed document showed that the Mossad, Israel’s intelligence agency, had advised that Iran was “not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons.” The United States intelligence community had reached the same conclusion in its National Intelligence Estimate.

Despite extensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, no evidence has ever been presented to contradict the clear commitment by Iran’s leaders that they would under no circumstances engage in manufacturing, stockpiling and using nuclear weapons. In 2013, for example, only Japan, which has many more nuclear facilities than Iran, was subject to greater agency scrutiny.

Yet, in his speech this week, Mr. Netanyahu claimed the agency had determined that Iran had “a military nuclear program.” This is a gross distortion of the agency’s position. The “possible military dimensions,” which Mr. Netanyahu amplifies on every available occasion, are based not on the agency’s findings but on referrals by other member states with their own political agendas. In one case, in 2012, a former agency director dismissed such a report “because there was no chain of custody for the paper, no clear source, document markings, date of issue or anything else that could establish its authenticity.”

Iran has also alerted the agency to many errors in the relevant documents, and our position has been confirmed by independent nonproliferation experts. We will nevertheless continue to work with the agency to resolve this issue — despite our skepticism, which leads us to recall the notorious forged document about Niger’s “yellowcake” uranium that was used to coax the Security Council into authorizing the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

As one side of the talks that continue in Geneva, Iran can also bear testimony to the campaign of misinformation by Mr. Netanyahu to mislead the global public about the details of those nuclear negotiations. When the parties were finalizing the interim agreement in 2013, Mr. Netanyahu claimed that it would involve Iran’s receiving $50 billion in sanctions relief; the actual amount was about $7 billion. And as for his prediction that Iran would never abide by the terms of the accord, Iran has dutifully stood by every commitment — as the International Atomic Energy Agency has reported.

In our view, Mr. Netanyahu has consistently used these false alarms and outlandish claims both to serve his domestic political maneuvering and to create a smoke screen that relegates the Palestinian question to the margins. We have noted how his rhetoric has intensified in proportion to the international pressure on Israel to stop the settlement activity and end the occupation of the Palestinian territory.

The paradox of the situation is that a government that has built a stockpile of nuclear weapons, rejected calls to establish a nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East, made military incursions into neighboring states and flouted international law by keeping the lands of other nations under occupation, now makes such a big fuss over a country, Iran, that has not invaded another country since America became a sovereign nation.

Mr. Netanyahu seems to be in a state of panic at the prospect of losing this tool with which to attack Iran, as we do all in our power to address the genuine concerns of the international community and arrive at a settlement over our country’s nuclear energy program. Iran’s efforts, epitomized by the 2013 interim agreement, aim to resolve the issue with the P5-plus-1 group of countries (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany). Since Israel’s prime minister appears to be a person who thrives on chaos and conflict, we fear that he may have further plans to poison the atmosphere and sow discord among those involved in this historic effort.

There are other great issues at hand in the Middle East. The violent extremism we see in Syria and Iraq is one, and to fight it effectively, we need to ease international tensions. We must all address the problem of the breeding grounds that are delivering fresh recruits to the terrorist cause. Israeli aggression and the occupation of Palestinian territories have always been of major propaganda value for extremist recruitment.

During the quarter-century that Mr. Netanyahu and his allies have tried to keep Iran’s nuclear program at the forefront of the global agenda, they increased the number of illegal settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem to more than 750,000 from about 300,000. At the same time, Palestinians have continued to be evicted from their homes and land. This historic wrong, coupled with the blockade of Gaza, is the real ticking bomb in the Middle East. The whole world should work to defuse it by rising above petty politics and the lobbying of narrow-minded pressure groups"

If the Chairman of the Chinese Communist party flew to Moscow to address the Duma and talked about the US in terms as used by Netanyahu against Iran, why would you expect any US politician to not want a nuclear deterrent against such bellicose talk and action?

You would never hear Israel talk about such actions against Pakistan or US talk against China or Russia. Iran would have to be insane to allow its security be at the mercy of Israeli politicians, a country that had the temerity and gall to attack a US Naval Vessel.

The Beirut Barracks Bombings (October 23, 1983, in Beirut, Lebanon) occurred during the Lebanese Civil War when two truck bombs struck separate buildings housing United States and French military forces—members of the Multinational Force (MNF) in Lebanon—killing 299 American and French servicemen. An obscure group calling itself 'Islamic Jihad' claimed responsibility for the bombings.[2]

The chain of command likely ran from Tehran, to Iran's Ambassador to Syria, Ali Akbar Mohtashamipur in Damascus, to IRGC commander Hossein Dehghan, in Beirut, as the Iranians drew on assets in Lebanon.[3] Hezbollah, Iran and Syria have continued to deny any involvement in any of the bombings; even though, in 2004, the Iranian government erected a monument in Tehran to commemorate the 1983 bombings and its "martyrs".[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Beirut_barracks_bombing

If this is an act of a country 'fighting for civilization' I want nothing to do with that country.

Meanwhile, we're not in Tikrit, but the coalition is managing to stay busy.

(Reuters) - The United States and its allies staged 12 air strikes on Islamic State targets in Iraq and Syria in a 24-hour period, the Combined Joint Task Force said in a statement on Wednesday.

Three strikes near Kobani, Syria, hit a tactical unit and destroyed five fighting positions while in Iraq, five air strikes hit Islamic State bomb-making facilities, a weapons storage site and vehicles. Four raids also were carried out near Ramadi and Sinjar.

The Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, has reacted to Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech to the US Congress by saying that the world and the American people are too intelligent to take advice from “an aggressive and occupier regime” that has itself developed an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

“The world is happy with the progress in the negotiations between Iran and the P5+1,” Rouhani said in a cabinet meeting on Wednesday, speaking about the nuclear talks between Iran and the US, France, Germany, China, Russia and Britain. “Only one aggressive and occupier regime [Israel] is angry with the talks because it sees its existence tied with war and occupation.”

Rouhani said: “People of the world and America are too smart to take advice from such a war-mongering regime … which has pursued, produced and stockpiled a large number of atomic bombs in violation of international laws and away from the eyes of international inspectors.” Rouhani was referring to the fact that Israel, unlike Iran, has not signed the treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

He dismissed the Israeli leader’s claims as repetitive and ridiculous and said they exposed the declining influence of his country in the Middle East. “The person who is expressing such worries about Iran in fact has his hands on more than 200 nuclear warheads,” Larijani told Iranian lawmakers on Wednesday, according to the semi-official Fars news agency. “Doesn’t it show the disgrace of the world’s bullying power?”

Larijani also denied Netanyahu’s claim that Iran is seeking to build an empire in the region. In Tuesday’s speech, Netanyahu compared Iran to Islamic State (Isis) and said both were competing for the “crown of militant Islam”.

He had told American lawmakers: “Both want to impose a militant Islamic empire first on the region and then on the entire world. They just disagree among themselves who will be the ruler of that empire.

Larijani responded by saying: “We are not and have never been seeking to build an empire, but our Islamic revolutionary values against the big powers’ imperialism and the cruel Israel have appealed to the hearts of Muslims.”

Netanyahu’s speech also featured in Wednesday’s papers in Tehran. Kayhan, an ultra-conservative daily, described it as hollow in a front-page article and the reformist Etemaad said it was merely a “clown show”.

This article is a joint publication of TheNation.com and Foreign Policy In Focus.

As a secular Jew, I don’t do much praying. But this week, as the powerful pro-Israeli- government lobby AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) holds its annual policy meeting in Washington, I’m praying that this year marks the beginning of the end of the lobby’s grip on US foreign policy.

From March 1-3, over 10,000 AIPAC supporters will descend on the nation’s capital. The meeting comes at a time when the relationship between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is at an all-time low. House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu to address a joint session of Congress right after he speaks at the AIPAC conference is seen by the White House as a direct attempt to undermine the president and his administration’s nuclear talks with Iran.

In an unprecedented move, over fifty brave members of Congress have decided to skip Netanyahu’s address.

AIPAC’s support of the Israeli prime minister over the US president is turning AIPAC into a Republican-biased lobby, which could prove fatal to its future influence in Washington. Here are ten reasons why this would be good for world peace:

1. AIPAC wants to sabotage nuclear talks with Iran.

AIPAC—like the Israeli government—has no faith in the complex negotiations under way between Iran and the United States (along with its five partners) to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. It pushes for greater sanctions on Iran knowing that—as Secretary of State John Kerry has said—additional sanctions would threaten the diplomatic path.

AIPAC, which has successfully lobbied the US government to adopt crippling economic sanctions on Iran in the past, is ignoring White House warnings. Its lobby day this year will push for the Kirk-Menendez sanctions bill, which the president has vowed to veto. If the nuclear talks fail, the violence that has engulfed the Middle East will only get worse and will put the United States on a dangerous path to more war.

As of this past year, approximately 350,000 Israelis are recorded as living in illegal settlements, a record high. Despite the fact that United Nations Human Rights Council requested the removal of all of the West Bank’s settlers and cessation of all settlement activities without conditions, settlement construction has increased by 40 percent under Netanyahu.

Israeli settlements violate the Geneva Conventions and can be prosecuted at the International Criminal Court as “gross violations of human rights law and serious violations of international humanitarian law.” No wonder AIPAC doesn’t want Palestine to become a member of the ICC.

Claiming Israel was forced to defend itself against Hamas, AIPAC supported the Israeli offensive during the summer of 2014 called “Operation Protective Edge.” The attack resulted in more than 2,000 deaths (including over 500 children), six UN schools and hospitals flattened, 18,000 housing units destroyed and 108,000 people displaced from their homes.

Robert Cohen, the president of AIPAC, justified the Israeli offensive in a meeting with Congress on July 23. AIPAC also supported the two prior invasions of Gaza and the siege that has left Gaza’s 1.8 million residents living lives of intense poverty and misery.

4. AIPAC’s call for unconditional support for the Israeli government threatens US national security.

Washington’s one-sided support of Israel, demanded by AIPAC, has significantly increased anti-American sentiment throughout the Middle East, sowing the seeds of more possible terrorist attacks.

Even the since disgraced Gen. David Petraeus admitted that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment, due to a perception of US favoritism for Israel.”

Iran, additionally, could be a vital ally for the United States in the Middle East in the fight to control the Islamic State. But because of Israel’s hatred toward Iran and its strong influence on our politicians, US foreign policy reflect Israel’s perceived interests more than ours.

5. AIPAC makes the United States a pariah at the UN.

AIPAC describes the United Nations as a body hostile to Israel and has pressured the US government to oppose resolutions calling Israel to account. Since 1972, the United States has vetoed at least forty-five UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel’s actions against the Palestinians.

In 2011, AIPAC helped persuade 446 members of Congress to co-sponsor resolutions opposing Palestine’s petition to obtain statehood in the UN. Overriding Washington’s (and AIPAC’s) objections, in 2012 the UN General Assembly passed a motion granting Palestine non-member observer state status by a vote of 138 to 9.

More recently, in response to Palestine’s seeking membership at the International Criminal Court, AIPAC pushed the Obama administration to pull funding from the Palestinian Authority. Despite US opposition, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon affirmed that Palestine will become a member of the ICC on April 1, a highly controversial move that will allow Palestine to press charges against Israel for war crimes.{...}

6. AIPAC feeds US government officials a distorted view of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

AIPAC takes US representatives on sugar-coated trips to Israel, which are considered almost obligatory for every new member of Congress. AIPAC hosts members of Congress—and many of their spouses—on a free junket to Israel to see precisely what the Israeli government wants them to see. It’s illegal for lobby groups to take members of Congress on trips, but AIPAC gets around the law by using a bogus educational group called the American Israel Education Foundation to “organize” the trips for them. AIEF has the same office address as AIPAC and the same staff. These trips help cement the ties between AIPAC and Congress, furthering AIPAC’s undue influence.

To prove most of Congress is in the pocket of AIPAC, look no further than what AIPAC boasts about its policy conference, which is that it will “be attended by more members of Congress than almost any other event, except for a joint session of Congress or a State of the Union address.”

7. AIPAC attacks politicians who question unconditional support of Israel.

AIPAC demands that Congress rubber-stamp legislation drafted by AIPAC staff. It keeps a record of how members of Congress vote, which is used by donors to make contributions to the politicians who score well.

Members of Congress who fail to support AIPAC legislation have been targeted for defeat in re-election bids. These include Senators Adlai Stevenson III and Charles Percy, and Representatives Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, Cynthia McKinney and Earl Hilliard.

More recently, many Democrats who have publicly refused to attend Netanyahu’s speech in March have been directly targeted by AIPAC’s largest supporters. A representative of billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson warned that “if these Democrats would rather put partisan politics ahead of principle and walk out on the prime minister of Israel, then we have an obligation to make that known.” Adelson and Netanyahu’s other powerful right-wing supporters have vowed to use their wealth and extensive resources to punish Democrats who skip the speech.

{...}8. AIPAC attempts to silence all criticism of Israel by labeling critics as “anti-Semitic,” “de-legitimizers” or “self-hating Jews.”

Journalists, think tanks, students and professors have been accused of anti-Semitism for merely taking stands critical of Israeli government policies. These attacks stifle the critical discussions and debates that are at the heart of democratic policy-making.

9. AIPAC lobbies for billions of US tax dollars to go to Israel instead of rebuilding America.

With communities across the nation slashing budgets for teachers, firefighters and police, AIPAC pushes for over $3 billion a year in foreign aid to Israel. This money goes to the Israeli military to maintain, in high-tech fashion, the apartheid system of oppressing Palestinians.

10. Money to Israel takes funds from the world’s poor.

Israel has the twenty-fourth-largest economy in the world, but thanks to AIPAC, it gets more US tax dollars than any other country. At a time when the foreign aid budget is being slashed, reserving the lion’s share of foreign assistance for Israel means taking funds from critical programs to feed, provide shelter and offer emergency assistance to the world’s poorest people.

The bottom line is that AIPAC, which is a de facto agent of a foreign government, has influence on US policy out of all proportion to the number of Americans who support its policies. When a small group like this has disproportionate power, it hurts everyone—including Israelis and American Jews.

From stopping a catastrophic war with Iran to finally solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, an essential starting point is breaking AIPAC’s grip on US policy. That’s why I’m praying that this time, by snubbing President Obama and offending Democratic members of Congress, AIPAC is careening toward its own demise.

Defence Minister Khaled al-Obeidi said after meeting his Turkish counterpart, Ismet Yilmaz, that Ankara had expressed "total willingness to help Iraq in all fields, whether in training, arming or equipment."

Turkish cargo planes delivered military equipment to Baghdad on Tuesday, the latest sign that Ankara-- once accused of allowing IS to operate freely on its soil -- was getting more involved in the fight against it.

As a proud member of AIPAC, and a sane man, I call bullshit on your entire 'presentation'.**********

My old girl friend has broken her ankle !

Her husband, an ex-Marine - doesn't know what to do........he, like my father who never even went into a grocery store in his entire life......her husband doesn't know what to do, he has never used a dishwasher, a clothing washer, a clothing dryer, in his life, or a vacuum cleaner. He is doing a good job of keeping in wine, however.

:)

I have asked her to guide me to Europe this summer. She and my Niece have become friends, and I hate traveling alone......

Peter's Vision…10But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air.…

Usually read a an abrogation of the dietary laws, it can be read spiritually as well.

My Niece however does not, will not, eat animals. She would stick with whatever spiritual meaning may be found here. She sticks with Hindu kosher, so to speak.

>>Peter's vision of a sheet with animalsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAccording to the Acts of the Apostles chapter 10, Saint Peter had a vision of a sheet full of animals being lowered from heaven. A voice from heaven told Peter to kill and eat, but since the sheet contained unclean animals, Peter declined. The command was repeated two more times, along with the voice saying, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (verse 15) and then the sheet was taken back to heaven (Acts 10:16). The triple refusal here echoes the denial of Peter described in the Synoptic Gospels.[1][2]

At this point in the narrative, messengers sent from Cornelius the Centurion arrive and urge Peter to go with them. He does so, and mentions the vision as he speaks to Cornelius, saying "God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean" (Acts 10:28, KJV). Peter related the vision again in Acts 11:4-9.Interpretation

Simon J. Kistemaker suggests that the lesson God taught Peter in this vision is that "God has removed the barriers he once erected to separate his people from the surrounding nations."[3] Kistemaker argues that it means Peter has to accept Gentile believers as full members of the Christian Church, but also that God has made all animals clean, so that "Peter with his fellow Jewish Christians can disregard the food laws that have been observed since the days of Moses."[4] Albert Mohler, President of Southern Seminary, writes:[5]

As the Book of Acts makes clear, Christians are not obligated to follow this holiness code. This is made clear in Peter's vision in Acts 10:15. Peter is told, 'What God has made clean, do not call common.' In other words, there is no kosher code for Christians. Christians are not concerned with eating kosher foods and avoiding all others. That part of the law is no longer binding, and Christians can enjoy shrimp and pork with no injury to conscience.

Luke Timothy Johnson and Daniel J. Harrington write that this episode heralds a radical change in Peter's "identity as a member of God's people,"[6] but also that "the implication is that all things God created are declared clean by him, and are not affected by human discriminations."[7]

On the other hand, the United Church of God (a group following the teachings of Herbert W. Armstrong) calls this an "often-misunderstood section of the Bible",[8] arguing that Peter's statement in verse 28 indicates that the divine disclosure reflected only a teaching about people, and not one about food. The UCG argues that Peter realised "the puzzling vision could not be annulling God’s instructions."[8] The Seventh-day Adventist Church has a similar view of this passage.[9]Artistic depictions

Hillary in 2000: With everyone investigating the Clintons, “why would I ever want to do e-mail?”

Update: Benghazi select committee to subpoena Clintonemail.com data

posted at 2:01 pm on March 4, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

Share on Facebook

Well, a lot has changed since 2001 … and a lot hasn’t. BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski catches this unguarded moment from an old ABC News look into — tah dah! — questionable cash handling around Team Clinton in her first Senatorial bid. The moment of truth comes at the 3:30 mark or so, and makes it pretty clear that Hillary Clinton intended to keep prying eyes away from her communications..........

The Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) – in cooperation with local militias – took advantage of the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham’s (ISIS) weak defenses at the Al-‘Alam District by assaulting the latter’s positions at the villages of Siha and Mazra’at Al-Raheem.

Following their attack on the two villages, the ISF and their allies declared Siha and Mazra’at Al-Raheem under full government control, killing 12 ISIS militants in the process.

With the success in the imperative city of Tikrit flooding the news from the frontlines, the Iraqi Minister of Defense revealed that 97 areas have been officially liberated from ISIS’ control in the Salaheddeen Governorate.

To coincide with their offensive at Tikrit, the ISF has launched a new offensive just south of Al-Ramadi at the city of Al-Houz.

The offensive at Al-Houz is already under way, with the ISF and the Badr Brigades (Liwaa Al-Badr) advancing past ISIS’ frontline defenses inside the city on Wednesday.

As the ISF continues to press ISIS around the country, the latter is on the verge of being cutoff completely from eastern Iraq; this is due in large part to the ISF’s successful campaigns in the Diyala and Salaheddeen provinces.

The Saudi king gave a prize to an Islamic scholar who says 9/11 was an ‘inside job’

Over the weekend, Saudi Arabia’s King Salman awarded a prestigious prize to Zakir Naik, a televangelist and religious scholar from India, heralding him as “one of the most renowned non-Arabic-speaking promulgators of Islam.” Naik, a trained doctor, founded the Peace TV channel, which supposedly reaches an audience of 100 million English-speaking Muslims.

=======================================

The preacher is not short of controversy. His orthodox, Wahhabist views — affiliated closely with the Saudi state — are polarizing in India, which is home to a diverse set of Muslim traditions and sects. His conservatism has led him to make statements endorsing the use of female sex slaves and allegedly expressing sympathy for terrorists.

==================================

In a 2008 video, he claimed President George W. Bush was behind the Sept. 11 attacks. “Even a fool will know that this was an inside job,” Naik said. Years before, he appeared to offer tacit backing to terrorist masterminds such as Osama bin Laden.

“If [Bin Laden] is terrorizing America the terrorist, the biggest terrorist, I am with him,” he said in one video. “Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”

========================================

In a video in 2007, he talked about how “Jews are controlling America.”

In 2010, Britain’s government barred his entry into the country on grounds of “unacceptable behavior.”

Such "insurance" from Obamacare not only fails to provide access to doctors, but research in the top medical journals such as Cancer, American Journal of Cardiology, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation and Annals of Surgery, show that Medicaid beneficiaries suffer worse outcomes than similar patients with private insurance ... all at an added cost of another $800 billion by CBO estimates to taxpayers after the decade...

==================================

Indeed, unless one has the financial resources or power to skirt the new system, many of America's top doctors and hospitals are no longer available.

More government-dominated care

Obamacare has forced Americans onto a far more government-dominated health care pathway than in the past. Coupled with population aging, the 107 million under the government's Medicaid or Medicare insurance in 2013 will rapidly increase to 135 million just five years later, a growth rate tripling that of private insurance.

By the end of the decade, a full 140 million Americans will have their health care access directly controlled by government insurance, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid.

More doctors than ever already refuse Medicaid and Medicare due to inadequate payments for care, and that will only accelerate as government lowers reimbursements. Less appreciated is that inadequate payments to doctors by government insurance substantially increase private insurance premiums.

Back in 2008, a shortfall of over $88 billion of payment from Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries added more than $1,500 extra per year in premiums and $1,800 extra in total out-of-pocket costs to every family of four with private insurance.

As the government increases its role as insurer, it increases its hold on payments to doctors and hospitals, so it will be able to reduce reimbursements and dictate access to limited networks of doctors and hospitals. And with increasing enrollment into government insurance, private premiums will undoubtedly rise even more...

The Independent Payment Advisory Board. The new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), composed of 15 members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, was created by the PPACA to enforce a per capita spending growth target in Medicare. If spending exceeds the set threshold, the board’s recommendations will automatically go into effect unless Congress passes legislation that equally reduces growth in spending. Otherwise, IPAB’s decisions will bypass congressional approval and require a two-thirds majority of Congress to override them.

The Independent Payment Advisory Board was one of the most controversial parts of the Obamacare legislation — mainly because it puts 15 unelected strangers in charge of health decisions for most Americans...

At a time when many Americans have been unsettled by abuses at the Internal Revenue Service and Justice Department, the introduction of a powerful and largely unaccountable board into health care merits special scrutiny...

The board, which will control more than a half-trillion dollars of federal spending annually, is directed to “develop detailed and specific proposals related to the Medicare program,” including proposals cutting Medicare spending below a statutorily prescribed level. In addition, the board is encouraged to make rules “related to” Medicare.

The ObamaCare law also stipulates that there “shall be no administrative or judicial review” of the board’s decisions. Its members will be nearly untouchable, too. They will be presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed, but after that they can only be fired for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.”

Once the board acts, its decisions can be overruled only by Congress, and only through unprecedented and constitutionally dubious legislative procedures—featuring restricted debate, short deadlines for actions by congressional committees and other steps of the process, and supermajoritarian voting requirements. The law allows Congress to kill the otherwise inextirpable board only by a three-fifths supermajority, and only by a vote that takes place in 2017 between Jan. 1 and Aug. 15. If the board fails to implement cuts, all of its powers are to be exercised by HHS Secretary Sebelius or her successor.

The IPAB’s godlike powers are not accidental. Its goal, conspicuously proclaimed by the Obama administration, is to control Medicare spending in ways that are insulated from the political process...

IPAB, under the current rules, becomes basically a 4th branch of government after 2017, basically immune to either Congress the Executive, or the public for that matter as none of its members is elected. It is like a new FED except that unlike the FED it can't be audited.

he individual mandate isn’t Obamacare’s only unconstitutional provision, or even its most unconstitutional provision. That distinction belongs to the Independent Payment Advisory Board. A heretofore unreported feature of this super-legislature makes it even more authoritarian and dangerous than anyone knew.

IPAB consists of up to 15 unelected government “experts.” Its stated purpose is to restrain Medicare spending. If projected spending exceeds certain targets, Obamacare requires IPAB to issue “legislative proposals” to reduce future spending. Those proposals could include drastic cuts that jeopardize seniors’ access to care, leading some critics to label IPAB a “death panel.”

But the really dangerous part is that these are not mere “proposals.” Obamacare requires the secretary of Health and Human Services to implement them — which means they become law automatically — unless Congress takes certain steps to head them off. Congress may replace the Board’s proposal with its own cuts, at least initially. But Obamacare requires a three-fifths vote in the Senate to pass any replacement that spends more than the Board’s proposal. In other words, to override IPAB’s proposal completely, opponents must assemble a simple majority in the House and a three-fifths majority in the Senate and the president’s signature...

That makes IPAB more than an advisory board. It’s a super-legislature whose members are more powerful than members of Congress. If eight members of Congress propose a bill, all that’s necessary to block it is a majority of either chamber, or one-third of either chamber plus the president.

Worse, Obamacare forbids Congress to repeal IPAB outside of a brief window in the year 2017 — and even then requires a three-fifths supermajority in both chambers plus a presidential signature. Under Obamacare, after 2017 Congress could repeal Medicare, but not the board it created to run Medicare. Congress and the states could repeal the Bill of Rights — but not IPAB.

What kind of laws will these super-legislators impose? Obamacare supposedly prohibits these super-legislators from raising taxes or rationing care. Yet those restrictions are unenforceable and meaningless. For instance, the statute lets IPAB define “rationing” and protects that definition — along with the secretary’s implementation of IPAB’s edicts — from administrative or judicial review. The prohibition on raising taxes is likewise toothless. IPAB can raise taxes as surely as it can cut Medicare spending.

In effect, Obamacare gives IPAB the power to raise taxes, spend money, place conditions on federal grants to states, and exercise other powers the Constitution reserves solely to Congress. If the Supreme Court upholds Obamacare’s mandated Medicaid expansion, states may soon see IPAB imposing similar mandates on states. And if President Obama fails to appoint any IPAB members, all these powers fall to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius.

As if all this weren’t bad enough, we discovered a heretofore unreported feature of Obamacare. According to the statute, if Congress fails to repeal IPAB during that short window in 2017, then in 2020 Congress loses any and all power to restrain these super-legislators.

The Congressional Research Service and others have reported that Congress will always retain some (limited) power to block IPAB’s edicts, but they misread a crucial part of the statute. They thought they saw the word “or” where the statute actually says “and.” The difference is dramatic.

As we explain in our new report, under the statute as written, if Congress fails to repeal IPAB in 2017, the secretary must implement IPAB’s edicts even if Congress votes to block them. Nancy Pelosi was right: We needed to pass Obamacare to find out what was in it. We’re still finding out.

Obamacare is so unconstitutional, it’s absurd. It delegates legislative powers that Congress cannot delegate. It creates a permanent super-legislature to supplement — and when conflicts arise, to supplant — Congress. It tries to amend the Constitution via statute rather than the amendment procedure of Article V.

Obamacare proves economist Friedrich Hayek’s axiom that government direction of the economy threatens both democracy and freedom. After decades of failing to deliver high-quality, low-cost health care through Medicare, Congress struck upon the “solution” of creating a permanent super-legislature — or worse, an economic dictator — with the power to impose taxes and other laws that the people would reject.

Fortunately, one Congress cannot bind future Congresses by statute. If the Supreme Court fails to strike down Obamacare, Congress should exercise its power to repeal IPAB — and the rest of Obamacare with it.

Death Panel? Call it what you like. Whatever else it is it is one more example of this administrations contempt for the constitution and one more example of Congress' willingness to willingly give up the duties they were elected to carry out.

Magnificent Ronald and the Founding Fathers of al Qaeda

“These gentlemen are the moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” — Ronald Reagan while introducing the Mujahideen leaders to media on the White house lawns (1985). During Reagan’s 8 years in power, the CIA secretly sent billions of dollars of military aid to the mujahedeen in Afghanistan in a US-supported jihad against the Soviet Union. We repeated the insanity with ISIS against Syria.